India’s attitude towards the Burmese
Amnesty International has issued an alert saying the Indian government is trying to forcibly return refugees escaping from Burma. The Indian government’s complicity in propping up the Burmese junta seems to have gone broadly unnoticed, which is a huge shame. Earlier this week, it was accused of running secret trials against Burmese rebels. Something to do with economic deals maybe? Manmohan Singh should be ashamed of himself.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: South Asia
What can people here do about India and Russia’s involvement in propping up the Junta? I am keen to find ways to protest against them for putting business before life.
I’ve noticed that Laura Bush is pushing harder for increased US sanctions. Can someone provide me with a link so that I can keep track of exactly what the British goverment is doing on a daily basis? After all, didn’t Milliband state that he was looking forward to the time when Aung San Suu Kyi would be leading Burma again? What is he doing about it then?
This is good news about China supporting the UN security council statement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2189556,00.html
I read a piece in the Bangkok Nation decrying Thailand’s complicity:
Have you been to Burma? From the few lines you’ve stuck up there – imploring shame at the end on Manmohan Singh – I suspect not Sunny.
Allow me to impress upon you and your readers the ordinary Burmese person’s attitudes towards Indians (both local and foreign).
I’m a Singaporean (ethnicity:Indian) and travel (have been doing so for a decade) to Rangoon, where I also have relatives, at least a couple of times a year for business.
There is a significant South-Asian (mostly Indian and Bangladeshi) minority in Burma, and they belong to opposite ends of society – the poorer bus drivers, barbers and cooks are frequently discriminated by the native Burmese (as they are, mind you, in Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia) while the vastly richer, influential business class is grudgingly tolerated.
Such negative attitudes have prevailed since the days of the British when Indians were found in larger numbers than today and worked mostly as clerks and administrators of the colonial power. (George Orwell’s Burmese Days touches sporadically on the contempt for the Indians by the locals.)
So I feel it’s pretty fanciful that the Burmese are now requesting Manmohan Singh to pressure the ruling junta for reform, whilst criticizing India for not providing a vehement voice of opposition to the recent crackdowns.
I’m no supporter of that vile junta but I think India’s priority is to protect its geopolitical and economic interests and not concern itself with the rights of the Burmese people (if you start with one country’s downtrodden, where do you stop? The rights of Filipinos? Indonesians? Tibetans?) – the Indian government should only worry about their people at home, who, I feel, will be served better by the status quo.
It’s true what they say – people often deserve their governments, and I have no sympathy for the Burmese.
Tell me which other cowardly populace – conveniently cowering behind saffron robes – would send its noble men of non-violence to face down the might of a nasty dictatorship.
And such cowardice will only prolong the junta’s stranglehold on power. And neither India nor China will bat an eyelid.
Pankaj,
I had promised myself that, come what may, I would be nice to people who post here. I would not explete an ad hominem ever again, I would see error as an opportunity.
Well, fuck that.
Are you a human being or a machine? A malfunctioning machine, by thr way. India should not be concerned about the Burmese, because:
I paraphrase, correct me if I get it wrong. India in the past has not said a lot. And now it is, it is wrong?
Frankly, that does not make any sense whatsoever. It is always a delight to meet someone who is so limited, so restricted that they see international boundaries as limits on concience. You said:
“(if you start with one country’s downtrodden, where do you stop? The rights of Filipinos? Indonesians? Tibetans?)”
The answer to your question is obvious. It is nowhere.
Pankaj:
-”There is a significant South-Asian (mostly Indian and Bangladeshi) minority in Burma, and they belong to opposite ends of society – the poorer bus drivers, barbers and cooks are frequently discriminated by the native Burmese”
This really does suck, and thanks for pointing this out.
But I don’t get your logic:
- So I feel it’s pretty fanciful that the Burmese are now requesting Manmohan Singh to pressure the ruling junta for reform, whilst criticizing India for not providing a vehement voice of opposition to the recent crackdowns.”
The connection between the two assertions? That because South Asians are discriminated against in Burma, Singh can continue arming the regime? If so, then apply this logic across the board to other situations.
“the Indian government should only worry about their people at home, who, I feel, will be served better by the status quo.”
So how are the “people” of India being served better by the current relationship between India and Burma? I don’t mean simply Indian politicians, the elite, and arms folks. I mean all 1 billion people.
-”Tell me which other cowardly populace – conveniently cowering behind saffron robes – would send its noble men of non-violence to face down the might of a nasty dictatorship.”
The Burmese people didn’t “send” its “noble men of non-violence,” you nitwit. The monks took initiative, organized themselves, and spearheaded the protests. If anything, the Burmese followed their “noble men of nonviolence.”
And BTW, those monks are indeed non-violent, but they are not new to being politically active in Burma.
Also, you call the Burmese “cowardly”- yeah, I’m sure that those 3,000 Burmese students, activists, citizens, and monks who were killed in ‘88 by the security forces were “cowardly.”
Douglas,
You should know better than to make promises to yourself.
And what’s with the swearing?
My, my, my. I certainly must have offended your cozy, Home Counties sensibilities, coz you’ve worked yourself into a right ol’ snit.
No surprises then that you’ve gone on to make a complete hash of picking through the bones of my argument.
Bit of an intellectual lightweight aren’t you?
Your riposte is laughably undercooked — you’ve merely wrenched two paragraphs out of context from my original post upon which to vent your misguided anger — and completely misses the nub of the issue I’ve raised.
The Burmese have had, for generations now, an insecurity complex regarding ethnic Indians and one can’t help but feel a sense of ironic justice as they now go boo-hooing to Manmohan Singh for help.
India’s priority (and rightly so) is to protect its borders and its citizens.
Whether you like it or not Mr Clark, international boundaries affect the way in which lives are led within it.
The influx of refugees on a poor country like India will only lead to a humanitarian disaster.
And when I wrote the following — “if you start with one country’s downtrodden, where do you stop? The rights of Filipinos? Indonesians? Tibetans?” , I was referring to the Indian government’s actions vis-a-vis human rights in other countries.
India, riven by poverty and struggling with its billion plus population, can’t afford to go around being concerned with the welfare of under-siege citizens in neighbouring countries.
Bless the Indians but they are nowhere near the superpower that they perceive themselves to be.
The coalition government in New Delhi is too fractious and too busy running a vast union of 28 states and seven union territories (where gross violations of human rights are made daily in the name of caste, religion and status) to bother about an afterthought of a country whose citizens have been lounging far too long under the excuse of a military government (more than forty-five years and counting) to do anything about their lot.
Desi,
How am I going to argue with someone who believes that three-thousand Burmese were actually killed in 1988?
You weren’t there so stop buying your material from third, fourth-hand sources.
Pickled Politics is fast becoming populated with simple-minded no-hopers like Desi Italiana, LOL!
You’ve taken apparent offence to the following line in my piece: “Tell me which other cowardly populace – conveniently cowering behind saffron robes – would send its noble men of non-violence to face down the might of a nasty dictatorship.”
Must I spell it out for you? — With the Burmese public continually being docile, the monks had no other alternative but to make a stand — thus in effect they were sent (and some of them to their deaths mind you) by proxy by the lame cowards that are the people of Burma.
I hope I’ve made myself clear now.
“Pickled Politics is fast becoming populated with simple-minded no-hopers like Desi Italiana, LOL!”
Pankaj didn’t answer any of my questions, LOL!
And Pickled Politics is fast becoming populated with simple-minded folks who post racist comments like Pankaj, LOL!
“Must I spell it out for you? — With the Burmese public continually being docile, the monks had no other alternative but to make a stand — thus in effect they were sent (and some of them to their deaths mind you) by proxy by the lame cowards that are the people of Burma.”
Reminds me of the people of Singapore. When the People’s Action Party decides to crack down on any civilian unrest in Singapore, by your logic do not expect any help from anyone. But as long as the shopping is good that won’t happen right??
Oh Sahil you’re one sorry half-wit, aren’t you.
And talk about trying to finish off with a smirky, smart-arsed quip — “as long as the shopping is good that won’t happen right??”
You’re kidding me right? You’re trying to compare the Burmese junta — the most fantastic coterie of tinpots, buffoons and imbecilic dolts this side of Ankara — with the Singapore government?
The same Singapore government that overhauled a sleepy third-world colonial port into a first world metropolis — the world’s fourth most important financial centre after New York, London and Tokyo?
The same Singapore government that created the most efficient transhipment hub with the busiest port in the world?
The same Singapore government that created the world’s most remarkable transportation system, or the most cutting-edge bio-medical and health care systems around?
The same Singapore government that created the world’s most important oil-refining centre, the same government that created the most important air-hub in Asia?
The same Singapore government that has created nothing but unprecedented wealth year upon year upon year for its citizens?
I rest my case.
Don’t get all jealous just because astute governance and sheer hard work has allowed people like me — and a vast majority of my compatriots — to make more money than you’ll ever get your grubby hands on and thus enjoy a standard of living you can only ever dream of.
Civilian unrest in Singapore? What, with all this wealth? This is the land of plenty. We made it ourselves and deserve it.
You’re a bit of a caveman if you think Singapore’s only about shopping. Why don’t you take off your Far Eastern Economic Review goggles and make a trip down here before working yourself up into such a lather.
And besides, we’re debating Burma not Sunny Singers.So grab yourself a nice, cold Tiger and chill out.
Errh I lived there for 7 years heh. And guess what I lived there through the 1998 so don’t tell me this year on year growth nonsense. As for the shopping, you talked about indolent Burmese, Singaporeans could teach there Burmese a thing or two about passive acceptance of the status quo as long as there is Orchard Street oh and cheap chili crabs in Pongol. You’ve just reminded why I’m thankful I left that 30×25KM Island. Enjoy going round and round the MRT I prefer to see the Pagodas in Burma. ALl hail the god of money LOL.
To Pankaj, Singaporean (ethnicity:Indian):
No one seems to have discredited your ignorance, prejudice and personal bitterness better than yourself. In that regard, thanks for saving many people a lot of time in taking your foolish views apart.
“the world’s fourth most important financial centre after New York, London and Tokyo?”
False, deluded and arrogant as ever, Singapore is even less relevant than Shanghai let alone HongKong:
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9753240
“The same Singapore government that created the most efficient transhipment hub with the busiest port in the world?”
Again false and deluded:
http://www.4to40.com/QA/index.asp?id=931&category=science
“The same Singapore government that created the world’s most remarkable transportation system”
Surprise, wrong again:
http://www.virgin-vacations.com/site_vv/11-top-underground-transit-systems-in-the-world.asp
“most cutting-edge bio-medical and health care systems around?”
Do I even need to say it you fool:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1470/biotechnology_start_ups_in_singapore_inspiring_future_entrepreneurs/(parent)/158
“The same Singapore government that created the world’s most important oil-refining centre”
Heh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
“the same government that created the most important air-hub in Asia?”
Not the busiest even in Asia, but I have to say I do think Changi is a beautiful airport:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements
You know the problem with singapore is arrogant idiots like you who just sit back on past achievements and now have fallen behind on the work laid down by the previous generations. Wake up and stop being so deluded.
Pankaj,
Following on from Sid’s accurate remarks, you might have a more receptive audience here if you just discussed your experiences (and quoted any relevant facts) in a civilised manner, without resorting to condescension and ad hominem attacks against commenters you may disagree with. The majority of people who participate on PP are decent folk, and the individuals you have targetted on this thread for your insults certainly do not deserve such a derisive and dismissive attitude from you. Have some manners, especially if you are as educated and successful as you claim to be.
You’re also making some erroneous assumptions about the background and financial potential of your audience, considering that (for example) a number of regular participants on PP are members of the investment banking sector, including several people on this thread.
India has many human rights issues of its own , so you would not expect it to make a stand for other countries.
Amnesty 2007 report on India
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Asia-Pacific/India
A BBC report on how India gets help from Burma to combat its own separatist movementsand its commercial interests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7013975.stm
I tend to agree with much of what Pankaj says and boy, he has a gift with words and can make mincemeat of his critics. Mind you, he would generate more goodwill if he were a bit more civil.
On India’s stand on Burma, I agree with columnist PRAFUL BIDWAI (Frontline Oct 07) when he dismissed
India’s foreign policy approach to Myanmar as a sham and abject failure.
“New Delhi somersaulted over Nepal until it recognised the inevitability of the absolute monarchy’s end. there was the failure to anticipate or influence major developments in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and, more recently, to support the movement for full democratisation in Pakistan.
“Just as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi were extolling the virtues of Gandhian non-violence, the new Army Chief, Deepak Kapoor, said that the happenings are Myanmar’s “internal affair” but “we have good relations” with its government and “we should maintain these”. General Kapoor stressed that the support of the Myanmarse military is vital to the success of India’s counter-insurgency operations in the northeastern region.
“Out go our “romantic” notions such as democracy, human rights, and peaceful resolution of disputes, from which other things follow… In realpolitik, everything is OK so long as it promotes “the national interest” (for example, counter-insurgency).
“It is only in New York that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee sensed the international mood on Myanmar and proposed an inquiry into the unconscionable use of force in Yangon and other cities…”
The truth is India is a big zero in international diplomacy – tired ancient men like Manmohan Singh or Pranab Mukerjee simply don’t have the intellectual capacity, communication skills, the suavete, the subtlety to assess a tricky situation quickly and respond firmly.
Why not ask the Chinese for some help?
Panjat,
You actually had an arguement? Well, fuck me, I missed it.
Well, it seems to be OK to play the nationalist card here. At which you seem to be an expert. Nuff said, you are a someone who can’t see beyond borders. It is a pathetic, though all to prevelant attitude.
I don’t live in the Home Counties. Do I get Brownie Points for that?
More on India – Burma links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6386543.stm
And there I was, all set with glad tidings for the week ahead.
Alas…
I’ve –- only just — been overcome by the subfecal stench wafting from the infantile responses to my post and subsequent remarks.
To begin with, isn’t it depressing that the likes of Sad Sahil chooses to spend his weekend wading through the iffy world that is Wikipedia to build a shambles of a case against Singapore and me.
I suppose when one holds unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, ill-formed views on Burma, and then has them scythed down by someone with credible, first-hand knowledge on the situation inside the country, the person in question retorts cowardly to the extent of launching a little dig, if not a tirade against the other’s nationality – thereby hijacking the thread.
Before venturing further, I note with hilarity that Jai kicks off with an ad hominem attack on yours truly before requesting that I stop using such tactics myself.
Selective chiding – isn’t that right Jai?
Which is fine.
For I have no qualms whatsoever stooping to the level of runty guttersnipes like Doug Clark (initiator of the ad hominem mania) and Sid – the latter so smug in his views that he merely opts for the predictable, perfunctory slight.
Clark meanwhile, the degenerate – he can’t even spell ‘argument’ (wonderful, don’t you think?) – that he is, resorts to swearing when confronted with issues way beyond his intelligence.
Jai claims there are several members of the investment banking –- inferring deference to them –- community loafing about on this thread.
Don’t make me laugh.
Most of these jokers would struggle to open a savings account at a high street branch, let alone operate in the world of high finance.
Speaking of cretins, I must pay some due attention to Sad Sahil.
Now here’s a guy who’s still hung over at being a failure in Singapore – couldn’t quite cut the mustard over here, could you big boy. (Seven years, and bitterness is all you’ve got to show for it? Were you that insignificant, that irrelevant, and that dispensable that you clung on, unhappily, to the whims of your employer? Well, then again with a name like that, your Java programming gig probably got outsourced to the Philippines or something.)
He remembers 1998 in response to my position that the Singapore Government has delivered year upon year of unprecedented wealth since independence.
The Asian Crisis (and the 2003 downturn as a result of the SARS epidemic) was not of the government’s doing. When it has been in their hands, they have delivered abundantly. Fact.
And besides, they were both one-year blips at most. If you ask me, two unforeseen, uncontrollable economic downturns in forty-two years of independence is pretty good going.
Moving on, I’d urge you to revisit the link in the Economist that you’ve provided me. Take a look at the heading atop the chart in question and then reacquaint yourself with my first assertion.
Then again, I didn’t expect you to be anything other than blinkered seeing that you’ve used a right-wing arse wipe of a publication to substantiate your first counter claim.
Your references regarding transportation (“virgin-vacations”? You cannot be serious!) and healthcare are risible to say the least.
Oh and here’s a fact – Singapore is Asia’s foremost air hub. How you manage to keep a straight face upon returning with figures showing traffic movements to counter my claims vis-à-vis Changi’s status is nothing short of utter buffoonery.
You don’t need me to clobber the word ‘hub’ into your skull, do you?
Look at the (type) destinations that Singapore Airlines, Qantas, BA, Cathay Pacific, Air India, Garuda Indonesia, Japan Airlines, Indian Airlines and several Chinese Airlines connect out of Singapore and then show me a more critical node in Asian aviation.
It’s not by quirky happenstance that the A380 will launch its maiden commercial voyage from Singapore next week.
You were, it must be said, a little too kind with Changi – Terminal 1’s interiors have looked dated for a good few years now.
As for the one on oil refining, I’ll hold my hand up high and admit I got that wrong.
However, you, dear boy, have chosen very flimsy hooks by hanging your counterpoints on Wikipedia references. You shouldn’t trust a site on which your Nana and her wrinkly pet pug could make wholesale revisions to.
Those entire points aside, you seem, also, to have a cloying belief in the passivity of Singaporeans. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You ought to –- difficult though it might seem to someone with stunted intellectual faculties –- think things through a bit more. Especially since you’ve already spent seven years here in Singers.
How can a passive people drive a country to dizzying industrial heights?
How can a passive people deliver an efficient, technologically advanced world city?
How can a passive people create so much wealth year after year after year?
With only four million of us, might I add.
And it’s worth remembering also our 2-year national service stint, and the reservist duties that we carry out well into our forties. A country that can turn out 300,000 citizen soldiers at the polyphonic tone of a text message is anything but passive.
You will never find anywhere else a government and a people working hard — getting things done efficiently, smartly (that sound passive to you?) — together on the same page towards the same goal, which is giving ourselves the best standard of living possible. [Lest I get headhunted to become the PAP's head pamphleteer, I better end the point here
]
(Go to the Smithsonian website and read the September issue on Singapore.)
You, Sad Sahil, have fallen into the lazy man’s trap of equating being passive with demonstrativeness or lack thereof. I suppose it’s an Indian (and perhaps, American) notion that one has to stand up and rant and rave to get anywhere, and that doing so is good.
Yet the Indians –- with their so-called non-passivity (industrial action, pointless wingeing, political melodrama) –- themselves prove that this does not work. With all that arm flailing, head wiggling, crotch grabbing and throaty yelling, nothing gets done…ever.
Now the reason we’re here – Burma.
To most of you on this site, Burma is just a tab in your bookmarks list.
To most of you Burma is just a march to get stoned at on an unseasonably agreeable October afternoon.
To most of you Burma is just a cool t-shirt, or an arresting photograph on the cover the Independent.
Or for that matter, people like Sad Sahil, for whom Burma is but a few Pagodas and a Wikipedia entry.
Yet, without having been there, he prefers its squalor to Singapore’s sophistication. (Incidentally, there are pagodas in Singapore but I suppose some people prefer necking puris in Serangoon Road than going around Singers and having a look-see).
Fact: most of you lot know bugger all about Burma.
So I’d urge you lot not to be too smug there in your shabby terrace homes after gleaning third hand information from newspapers whose sources are questionable at best.
Don’t you think its odd when media outlets say “Oh it was impossible get news in 1988…” yet conveniently managed to sneak out the figure of three thousand dead.
If three thousand people did in fact die, then in a city of four million people like Rangoon, one would be able to find scores of relatives, friends, somebody-who-knew-somebody who perished in those brutal crackdowns.
Yet the numbers don’t add up. I have over my ten or so years there not come across too many people with ultra-tragic nightmares of 1988.
And remember, people will talk to someone like me, who they know and have been employed by for years sooner than they would to some mock whisperer of a journalist under the dancing shadows of a candle.
I’ll say it again. The numbers of 1988 don’t add up. This junta is too inept to kill that many people, even by accident.
I’ve mentioned it before; I’ve done business in Burma and will continue to do so. I have sponsored Burmese students to study in Singapore and that (not to mention those in my employ in Rangoon) is more than anything any of you will ever do for the people Burma – in your entire lifetimes.
I’ve mentioned the indolence of the Burmese and that seems to have rankled you lot the most. It’s funny how people will sooner believe fourth-hand half-truths than first-hand facts.
As we know, corporations run the world. And these entities would be in Burma in two seconds and in cahoots with the junta if money – pots – could be made. Some are already there, sniffing minerals amongst other activities.
But most global firms (of course the junta can be bought) won’t come. You know why? Because of the Burmese fondness for being bone idle. Guess where most able-bodied dudes were when the monks seized the initiative? Chilling in teashops.
If the Burmese were serious about the reordering of their country, thousands upon thousands would return to take up the cause. Thirty thousand alone live in Singapore, a few thousand in London, and yet thousands more scattered the world over. (When I last checked (err, about a day ago), flights were still available from Singapore, other ASEAN capitals and India.)
Yet now, most of these overseas Burmese –- the most educated, and most moneyed citizens of their nation -– instead of returning and taking up cudgels themselves have suddenly developed a taste for acting as media go-betweens for various news organizations in their adopted abodes.
A sorry state of affairs indeed.
My apologies to newer readers of the thread, who would have had to wade through the scat to get to the notes regarding Burma.
But you should direct your annoyance to the imbeciles who left the turds behind.
Great comment. Shame about the tone and content.
“(Seven years, and bitterness is all you’ve got to show for it? Were you that insignificant, that irrelevant, and that dispensable that you clung on, unhappily, to the whims of your employer? Well, then again with a name like that, your Java programming gig probably got outsourced to the Philippines or something.)”
OMG this is too funny. I was a teenager when I lived there and I don’t really deal with Java. Maths is more my thing, LOL.
And yes wow, Singapore is really got an impressive army that’s why it’s always bending over to the US and Australia to make sure big scary Malaysia and Indonesia don’t invade. Almost reminds of apparent Swiss prowess in WW2 LOL. By the way aren’t you supposed to be Indian?? So why all the racist crap being hurled at the Indians as well. Jesus if you’re so blind to see that you being racist to the Burmese reduces any sympathy I may have for your family’s supposedly traumatic experience in Burma that you really are a silly billy. As I say again, I have a massive amount of respect to the older generation in Singapore and how they turned a Kampung into a metropolosis, but unthinking and ignorant twats like you really make Singapore look like a joke. Thank god I don’t have to live there anymore.
Personally I think the barbs in Pankaj’s little dissertation would have hit home harder if it wasn’t for the fact that I imagined him sounding exactly like Truman Capote.
Except Capote was arch and witty not weird and nasty.
Same voice, though.
another rubbish article by you sunny and you should be ashamed.
why dont you focus your attention on the real problem at hand
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484903
monks murdered in 100s and all you can write is about India. Shameful selfish publicity
Truman’s lapdog.
I must say that I have enjoyed Pankaj’s wide-ranging commentary and masterly use of the English language. It was great lesson to me and I have learnt a lot.
India’s stand on Burma is understandable. India is a big zero in international diplomacy – tired old ancient men like Manmohan Singh or Pranab Mukerjee simply don’t have the intellectual capacity, communication skills, the suavete, the subtlety to assess a tricky situation quickly and respond firmly.
As for Singapore, I agree with Pankaj wholly – I have passed through Changi some 20 times. Give me Singapore’s repressive ethos anytime in preference to India’s pathetic democracy riddled with mediocrity and corruption.
Sunny is it possible to pass us some IP addresses?? I know Liberty has a problem, but hell EDSA is interesting me.
A slight detour on the British role in Burma:
PM Gordon Brown was recently convulsing about “the British people’s revulsion over the violence inflicted by the Burmese government on its people”.
But does Mr Brown recall British aggression against Burma in the hey-day of empire (19th century)? Britain invaded Burma twice – in 1839 and again in 1852.
The governor of India, Lord Dalhousie demanded £100,000 compensation from the Burmese for imaginary insults to two Brit sea captains. When they refused, Burmese forts were shelled and hundreds killed. The war ended in 1853 and in due course a big chunk of Burma was annexed – that being the motive for the invasion all along.
The Burmese king was eventually deposed and exiled to Ratnagiri, north of Goa. And incidentally, the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah of India was also exiled by the British (after the Indian Uprising was quelled in 1858) to (guess where?) – to Rangoon!
Once in control the British ripped up Burma’s economy and environment. The mangrove forests were replaced with rice paddies, while British monopolies looted the country of oil, teak and rubies. Over the following 20 years of British rule Burmese society disintegrated. The British maintained control through “divide and rule” tactics, setting Burma’s various national minorities against each other.
SOURCE: John Newsinger’s ‘The Blood never dried’ (2007)
Truman’s sock-puppet.